RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R. P. Yadav for the petitioners and Sri R. P. Dubey who has put appearance on behalf of contesting respondent -3. Sri R. P. Dubey does not propose to file counter affidavit in the facts of the case. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.1.2015 by which the revision filed by respondent -3 was allowed and chak of the petitioners has been disturbed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also abolished the land reserved for extension of general abadi, khalihan, plantation and chak road on plot no. 69.
(3.) ONE of the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners that in the revision notices have not been issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he fix a date for spot inspection and conducted spot inspection. The alleged hearing was also done on the spot which has been denied by the petitioner and the petitioner stated that he was not present on the spot. By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has cancelled the reservation for public purposes made at the time of preparation of Statement of Principle also. He has also disturbed the chak of the petitioners. The reason assigned in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation that land reserved for public purposes in plot no. 69 does not serve any public purpose inasmuch as it was situated in the western boundary of the village. There is nothing on record to show that other abadi of the village was not by the side of plot no. 69. Reasons given for cancelling Statement of Principle does not appears to be a valid reason. The petitioners were allotted an area of 0.121 hectare on plot no. 128 in their chak. Admittedly plot no. 127 area 0.148 hectare was the original holding of the petitioners in which they were having 1/2 share thus allotment made on plot no. 128 i.e. adjacent to plot no. 127 cannot be said to be illegal. In such circumstances the order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is well settled that in the judicial proceeding the clients used to take help of advocates and in case without notice the revision was heard on the spot then the clients were deprived from taking help of the advocates. In such circumstances the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation? which has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing, is liable to be set aside.;